Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs Badri Ram

HEARD. The respondent is admittedly a consumer of the services of the appellant in respect of his electric connection of 27.5 H.P., sanctioned to him at his well. By its notice dated 23.3.2000 the appellants required the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,500/-. This amount included the charges for utilizing load of 42.5 H.P. by the respondent. The case of the appellant in this behalf was that at the time of surprise inspection by the vigilance party of the appellant, the respondent was found utilizing 42.5 H.P. load in place of 27.5 H.P. sanctioned to him. The liability of the respondent was raised on the basis that utilization of 42.5 H.P. load was required to be charged at enhanced rate. The respondent challenged the correctness of the liability raised against him through the aforesaid bill. Taking note of appellant''s Circular dated 26.6.1998 the Forum held that the said Circular permitted utilization of excess load upto 20% of the sanctioned load and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to charge for 9.5 H.P. excess load at the increased rates. The Forum, therefore, quashed the notice dated 4.3.2000 and directed the appellant to re-calculate the liability of the respondent in the light of the decision of the Forum. Aggrieved against such order of the Forum the appellant has filed this appeal.

PARA 1 of the Circular of the appellant issued on 26.6.1998 reads as under : However, relying upon a subsequent order dated 8.2.2002 the learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that this order requires that the entire load, as was being utilized by the consumer, was required to be charged at the enhanced rates. This order reads as under : Suffice it to say that the order dated 8.2.2002 is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case and liability of the consumer cannot be determined on the basis of this order, which had been made much after the incident creating his liability, if any. Insofar as the Circular of the appellant dated 26.6.1998 is concerned it itself says that utilization of load upto 20% of the sanctioned load would not be considered as utilization of excess load by a consumer. The consumer would be liable for utilization of the load which exceeds the sanctioned load plus 20% thereof. It may be remembered that the C.P. Act, 1986 is a social legislation aiming at protection of the rights of the consumers. Since it is a beneficial legislation to the interest and rights of the consumers it is required to be interpreted liberally always keeping in mind the interest of the consumers. It is well settled in law that if two views are possible of the interpretation of a clause in a statute, the one which benefits the subject must be adopted in preference to the one which causes hardship to him. When the Circular dated 26.6.1998 is so interpreted it comes out clearly that the appellant can charge at enhanced rate for the utilization of the load which exceeds the sanctioned load plus permissible load up to 20% of the sanctioned load. In that sense of the matter we fully agree with the views expressed by the learned District Forum in the present case. We find no force in this appeal and dismiss it summarily. Appeal dismissed.